Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405

Facebook: Digby Parton

@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)

thedigbyblog at gmail
satniteflix at gmail
publius.gaius at gmail
tpostsully at gmail
Spockosbrain at gmail
Richardein at me.com


Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic

Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


Wednesday, November 02, 2016

Sexism? What sexism?

by digby

Image result for why did it have to be snakes

It is an interesting fact of this campaign that despite it featuring the first woman nominee in our country's history nobody seems to think sexism is really all that salient an issue. There have been dozens of long, in-depth, soul searching essays about the plight of the white working class Trump voters, their attitudes about race, their economic anxieties, their loss of social status and yet the fact that sexism might be playing a part isn't much contemplated even as his voters are screaming "Trump that bitch" and wearing "Monica sucks but not like Hillary" and their own standard bearer is a card carrying misogynist pig.

But whatever. We do know that women are voting for Clinton in droves, many because they genuinely are excited to see a Democratic woman succeed President Obama. And there are undoubtedly a few Republican women who are so appalled by Trump that they are voting against their party to vote for Clinton.

But there is now some empirical evidence that much of the reason for Trump's success is sexism:

Since the start of the Republican primaries, hundreds of thousands of words and hours of television airtime have been devoted to one question: What do Donald Trump’s supporters want? The 42 percent of Americans supporting Trump have been studied and caricatured and psychoanalyzed.

Explanations abound: They’re stricken with economic anxiety. They’re anxious about their social status. They feel left behind by the federal government. They’re authoritarians who want a forceful leader. They’re racists who oppose the changing demographics and norms of the US.

But there’s another important factor that these analyses have largely left out: sexism. Three political scientists who studied the connection between sexism, emotions, and support for Trump found that the more hostile voters were toward women, the more likely they were to support Trump.

Researchers Carly Wayne, Nicholas Valentino and Marzia Oceno, who wrote about their work for the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, conducted their research before the revelation of the secret recording that captured Trump bragging about kissing and groping women without their permission, and before more than a dozen women came forward to accuse Trump of sexual assault in the aftermath of its release.

While it might not seem surprising now that Trump has galvanized sexists, their findings suggest that sexism played a much bigger role in his rise than most people realized or wanted to imagine.
How “hostile sexism” predicts support for Trump

Sexism has largely been overlooked as a major factor in voters’ decisions to support Donald Trump. That would be understandable if it were simply one factor among many — one prejudice among the many that Hillary Clinton called the “basket of deplorables … racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

But Wayne, Valentino, and Oceno’s research, conducted in June, found hostility toward women was a major factor, predicting support for Trump more strongly than authoritarian attitudes and about as well as racial prejudice. The political scientists used a four-question survey to determine sexist attitudes, asking if people agreed with the following statements:
Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
Many women are actually seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor women over men, under the guise of asking for equality.

The survey also asked how strongly respondents supported Clinton or Trump. The higher they were on the sexism scale, the more likely they were to support Trump and the less likely they were to support Clinton. Hostile sexism was nearly as good at predicting support for Trump as party identification was.

Sexism — and particularly anti-feminism — isn’t politically neutral. Many conservative women have come forward to say they’re horrified by Donald Trump, but sexism has been correlated with support for other Republican candidates as well. In studies of voters in 2008 and 2012, traditional beliefs about gender and hostility toward feminism were also linked to much lower support for Hillary Clinton.

“It’s the kind of sorting that people do to go into one party or the other,” said Wayne, a PhD candidate in political science at the University of Michigan. Republicans “tend to have attitudes that are more traditionalist, more old-fashioned, less likely to want the kinds of changes that feminism, for example, is pushing.”

Wayne said she couldn’t compare how sexist attitudes nationally had correlated with support for Republicans in previous elections, so she couldn’t say if Trump made the situation better or worse. But Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, used the same survey as part of a poll in New Hampshire, and found that sexism was a much bigger factor in the 2016 election than it was in 2012:


Brian Schaffner @b_schaffner

Ran a hostile sexism battery on recent NH poll. Here is the effect of sexism on vote for Romney in 2012 & Trump in 2016. Big difference.
2:42 PM - 27 Oct 2016


Clinton’s candidacy is another piece of important context — it’s possible that strong support for Trump among sexists is in part a reaction to the first woman who could plausibly be elected president — but Schaffner’s findings back up the idea that Trump’s core supporters are unusually hostile toward women and feminism.
Trump isn’t just tapping into “traditional values”

Trump’s support among sexists doesn’t seem to be a function of the traditional, old-fashioned “family values” usually associated with the Republican Party.

In a survey in August, Wayne and her co-authors measured the impact of a different kind of “old-fashioned” view about women’s roles: the belief that women are different from men because they’re physically weaker and more morally pure. They asked survey respondents if they agreed with the following statements: 

  • In a disaster, women should be rescued before men.
  • Women have a quality of purity that few men possess.
  • Men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide for the women in their lives.
  • Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.

The questions measure “benevolent sexism” — a traditional, chivalrous view of men and women’s proper roles. Benevolent sexism can still undermine women’s equality because it paints women as weaker and more in need of male protection. Unlike its more hostile counterpart, though, benevolent sexism didn’t correlate much at all with support for Trump, at least before the leaked Access Hollywood tape. (Unlike the study on hostile sexism, the researchers didn’t use a representative national sample but rather an online survey. But the results were weighted for partisan identity, and Wayne says it was a high-quality sample.)

“The hostile sexism is highly correlated, but the benevolent sexism really is not,” Wayne said. “I found this result particularly interesting in the aftermath of some of the fallout from Trump’s tape. … There were a lot of Republicans saying they were against Trump’s statements because of their daughters and wives.”

Trump, in other words, isn’t just drawing from a base of people who have traditional views about women’s roles. He’s getting support from people who are hostile toward women’s economic and legal equality and who think feminism is making America worse.
Trump’s sexism was hidden in plain sight

It shouldn’t be surprising that Trump is the candidate of choice for people who believe that allegations of sexism are mostly made up and that feminism is really a ploy to get men on the losing side of a zero-sum status competition between the sexes. Trump’s misogyny has been a core part of his public persona for a long time.

Long before many of the sexual assault allegations emerged, Trump made clear, in public and private, that women matter to him not as people but as sex objects. Even with women whom he supposedly likes and admires, he’s made clear that he values their looks above all else. He turned his attitudes into discriminatory policies in his offices, at his resorts, and on his TV show, harassing women he found attractive and urging his employees to fire those he did not.

The fact that Trump was virulently sexist used to be widely recognized. "His brand of self-aggrandizing, bewigged machismo was kind of de rigeur in the 80's and charmingly old-timey in the 90's, but now it's just passé and exhausting and increasingly offensive," Richard Lawson wrote in a post headlined "Donald Trump: A Sexist Dinosaur" for Gawkerin 2008. "And he never stops!"

In the vast American soul-searching over why people might want to vote for Trump, sexism has gotten short shrift. That might be because Trump’s blatantly sexist remarks were generally not a part of his political campaign or preferred policies, unlike his hostility toward immigrants and Muslims and his constant reiteration that African Americans live in a wasteland of crime and violence.

But even if his misogyny was more muted in the early days of the campaign, it appears to have found a receptive audience.
Or, to put it more succinctly, as Rebecca Traister wrote:
There is an Indiana Jones–style, “It had to be snakes” inevitability about the fact that Donald Trump is Clinton’s Republican rival. Of course Hillary Clinton is going to have to run against a man who seems both to embody and have attracted the support of everything male, white, and angry about the ascension of women and black people in America. Trump is the antithesis of Clinton’s pragmatism, her careful nature, her capacious understanding of American civic and government institutions and how to maneuver within them. Of course a woman who wants to land in the Oval Office is going to have to get past an aggressive reality-TV star who has literally talked about his penis in a debate. 
I shouldn't have had to be this hard. But it always is for "first" women who often have had to wait and wait and wait for their chance and then be chided for being old and ugly and washed up when they get there. But if they do get there, they are tough cookies who can take the heat. They have to be.